Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Psychol. 2014 Oct 27;28(6):867–876. doi: 10.1037/a0038128

Fathers’ Sensitive Parenting and the Development of Early Executive Functioning

Nissa R Towe-Goodman 1, Michael Willoughby 1, Clancy Blair 2, Hanna C Gustafsson 1, W Roger Mills-Koonce 1, Martha J Cox 1; The Family Life Project Key Investigators
PMCID: PMC4261022  NIHMSID: NIHMS627846  PMID: 25347539

Abstract

Using data from a diverse sample of 620 families residing in rural, predominately low-income communities, this study examined longitudinal links between fathers’ sensitive parenting in infancy and toddlerhood and children’s early executive functioning, as well as the contribution of maternal sensitive parenting. After accounting for the quality of concurrent and prior parental care, children’s early cognitive ability, and other child and family factors, fathers’ and mothers’ sensitive and supportive parenting during play at 24-months predicted children’s executive functioning at 3-years of age. In contrast, paternal parenting quality during play at 7-months did not make an independent contribution above that of maternal care, but the links between maternal sensitive and supportive parenting and executive functioning seemed to operate in similar ways during infancy and toddlerhood. These findings add to prior work on early experience and children’s executive functioning, suggesting that both fathers and mothers play a distinct and complementary role in the development of these self-regulatory skills.

There is compelling evidence that early executive functioning is critical for learning, self-regulated behavior, and mental health (Blair, 2002; Riggs, Blair, & Greenberg, 2004; Zelazo & Muller, 2002), yet research on the family factors contributing to individual differences in early executive functions remains scarce (Bernier, Carlson, Deschenes, & Matte-Gagne, 2012). Referring to a set of higher-order mental processes that allow for flexible, goal-directed behavior, such as working memory (holding and updating information while mentally working with it), attention shifting (shifting cognitive set among distinct but related aspects of a task), and inhibitory control (inhibiting a prepotent response to appropriately complete a task), executive functioning is needed to meet new challenges, resist temptation and distractions, reason and solve problems (Diamond, 2013). Emerging research highlights the importance of social interactions in the development of executive functions, suggesting relationships with caregivers provide the opportunities and support needed for these developing skills (Carlson, 2009; Bernier et al., 2012). However, research to date has focused largely on the role of maternal parenting quality; the specific contribution of fathers’ parenting in executive functioning development has yet to be investigated. Given evidence that fathers play an important role in children’s early development (for a review, see Lamb & Lewis, 2010), this is a notable gap. In this paper, we examine the unique contribution of fathers’ and mothers’ sensitive parenting during infancy and toddlerhood to children’s executive functioning skills at 3-years of age.

Given the wealth of evidence suggesting early environmental experiences shape brain development (e.g., Chugani et al., 2001; Debellis, 2001; Gunnar et al., 2006), there is reason to believe that early caregiver interactions impact the development of prefrontal brain systems linked with executive functions. The prefrontal cortex has an extended period of development after birth (Benes, 2001; Sowell, Trauner, Gamst, & Jernigan, 2002), and there are substantial corresponding changes in executive functioning skills across early childhood (for reviews, see Diamond, 2006; Garon, Bryson, & Smith, 2008). Although rudimentary executive functions (such as working memory and volitional direction of attention) are thought to emerge during the first year of life, children’s abilities undergo marked development thereafter, with the ability to perform flexibly and consistently across contexts emerging at the beginning of the preschool period (Diamond, 1991; Garon, et al., 2008). This relatively slow maturation of the prefrontal cortex is thought to provide an extended period of plasticity in which environmental experiences help shape development (Noble, Norman, & Farah, 2005), experiences which have their foundation in early parent-child relationships (Bernier et al., 2012). Indeed, animal studies and work with maltreated children have shown links between deficits in early parental care and impaired development of prefrontal systems (for a review, see Gunnar et al., 2006).

Although the role of caregivers in the development of executive functioning has only recently received attention, a small but growing body of research indicates early mother-child relationships play a vital role (Bernier, Carlson, & Whipple, 2010; Bernier, Carlson, Deschênes, & Matte-Gagné, 2012; Blair et al., 2011; Rhoades et al., 2010). In particular, maternal sensitivity and support is thought to provide an important context for children to learn and develop the skills needed for optimal development of executive functions. Parents that are engaged, attuned to the child’s needs, emotionally supportive, cognitively stimulating, and who foster their child’s development in a warm manner are thought to promote the self-regulated thought and behavior that define executive functioning, in addition to providing a positive and safe environment for children to practice and master these skills (Carlson, 2009). For example, Bernier, and colleagues (2010) found greater maternal sensitivity, use of mental terms, and support for autonomy at 12–15-months (assessed through global observations, a free-play, and a puzzle task) predicted better performance on executive functioning tasks 6 to 12 months later. Similarly, Hammond and colleagues (2012) found that greater maternal sensitive and supportive scaffolding during a challenging puzzle with their 3-year-olds was linked with subsequent increases in executive functioning. In one of the only related studies involving fathers, Bernier and colleagues (2012) found that a global parenting composite which combined the quality of both mothers’ and fathers’ interactions between 12- and 18-months (assessed through global observations, a free-play, and a puzzle task for mothers and a free-play task for fathers) predicted children’s executive functioning at age 3, with higher quality parenting linked with better performance on executive functioning tasks. Within the current sample, positive associations between maternal sensitive parenting during free-play at 7-months of age and children’s executive functioning at 3-years of age have been found, as well as evidence for both direct and indirect effects of greater maternal parenting quality across 7- 24-months in promoting 3-year-old’s executive functioning, and evidence for reciprocal relations between maternal sensitive parenting and executive function development (Rhoades et al., 2010; Blair et al., 2011; Blair et al., in press).

Although paternal and maternal contributions to executive functioning have yet to be examined separately, there is a strong theoretical and empirical rationale for considering the unique impact of fathers’ parenting. Consistent with a family systems perspective (Cox & Payley, 1997), child development is inextricably embedded within a network of family relationships, with both mothers and fathers providing independent and interrelated influences. Indeed, evidence suggests fathers’ parenting quality has a distinct and important role in early cognitive development and regulatory skills, even after maternal parenting quality is taken into account (Cabrera, Shannon, & Tamis-LeMonda, 2007; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2004, 2008; Tamis-Lemonda, Shannon, Cabrera, & Lamb, 2004). Within the current sample, evidence has been found for fathers’ unique contribution to children’s general cognitive development across the first 3-years of life, accounting for maternal contributions (Mills-Koonce et al., under review). As noted by Grossman and colleagues (2002, 2008), while mothers provide comfort and security in the face of distress, attachment theory points to the complementary role of fathers in providing sensitive and supportive encouragement for exploration, as well as teaching and gentle challenges during play with their young children. This emphasis on sensitive mentorship during play and encouragement in the face of new or difficult challenges is thought to help children develop and master the skills needed to competently adjust to new demands and adaptively regulate affect and behavior, and thus may be important for the development of executive functions. With widespread recognition that fathers may play a salient role in the early family environment (Lamb & Lewis, 2010), there is reason to believe that the quality of father-child relationships may independently contribute to individual differences in executive functioning skills.

In line with this premise, there is some research suggesting links between paternal parenting quality and the development of skills related to executive functions. For example, Kochanska and colleagues (2008) found that positive, mutually responsive father-child interactions between 7- and 24- months across multiple naturalistic contexts were positively linked with child self-regulation at 52- months. Even after accounting for maternal parenting quality, Karreman, Tuijl, van Aken, and Deković (2008) found significant negative associations between fathers’ intrusive and negative parenting during structured and unstructured play and children’s concurrent effortful control at 36-months. Similarly, in a sample of alcoholic and non-alcoholic fathers, less paternal warmth during free- and structured-play in toddlerhood mediated the links between paternal alcoholism and children’s lower effortful control in preschool, even when maternal parenting was taken into account (Eiden, Edwards, & Leonard, 2004). However, executive functioning is considered only one aspect of self-regulation, and effortful control and executive functioning are conceptually distinct constructs that are only moderately correlated (Blair & Razza, 2007); the independent contribution of fathers’ and mothers’ parenting to the development of children’s executive functioning has yet to be explored.

Finally, there is reason to believe that paternal parenting quality may be particularly influential in toddlerhood, as opposed to earlier in development. As noted by Carlson (2009), parenting practices may have varying effects on executive functions depending on the age and emerging abilities of the child. Although some basic components of executive functions emerge in infancy, the substantial growth in executive functioning skills across toddlerhood may offer an important window for parental influences (Garon et al., 2008). Further, evidence suggests fathers may be more involved in the toddler years than during infancy (NICHD ECCRN, 2000; Tamis-LeMonda & Cabrera, 2002). As noted by Grossmann and colleagues (2002), this increase in paternal involvement corresponds with toddlers’ growing independence, interest in exploration and playful interactions, making paternal support and gentle challenges during play particularly salient during this time. Although prior research on children’s general cognitive development suggests comparable effects of paternal parenting quality across infancy and early childhood (e.g., Mills-Koonce et al., under review), whether there are differential effects of fathers’ sensitivity in infancy or toddlerhood on executive functions is unknown.

To address these gaps, we sought to explore the longitudinal links between fathers’ and mothers’ sensitive parenting during play when their children were 7- and 24-months old, and the subsequent development of executive functioning at 3-years of age. Because available empirical evidence suggests early executive functioning is best characterized as a unitary, domain-general construct that may differentiate later in development (Willoughby et al., 2010; Wiebe et al., 2010; Hughes, Ensor, Wilson, & Graham, 2010), and we did not hypothesize differences in the relative contribution of paternal parenting to working memory, inhibitory control, or attention shifting, we conceptualized executive functioning at age 3 as a unidimensional construct. To provide a more stringent test of role of fathers’ and mothers’ parenting in the development of executive functions, we also controlled for child characteristics (age, sex, race, and general cognitive ability), and family characteristics (marital status, household income), as each of these child and family factors have been linked with differences in executive functioning and parenting (e.g., Blair et al., 2011; Berger, Carlson, Bzostek, & Osborne, 2008; Bernier et al., 2010; Cowan, Cowan, & Kerig, 1993; Coleman et al., 2002; Noland et al., 2003). We hypothesized that both maternal and paternal sensitive parenting during play would significantly predict the development of executive functions, with similar links between executive functions and maternal sensitive parenting across early childhood, and stronger links between fathers’ sensitivity and children’s executive functioning in toddlerhood in comparison to fathers’ parenting in infancy.

Method

Participants

The sample for the current investigation was drawn from the Family Life Project, an ongoing longitudinal study of 1,292 families residing in predominately rural areas in Pennsylvania (PA) and North Carolina (NC) with a high incidence of chronic poverty. Families were recruited over the course of a year from local hospitals immediately following the birth of a child, oversampling low-income and African-American families to address the overarching goals of the project. For further information on the developmental epidemiological sampling design of the project, see Willoughby et al., (2013).

Because of our focus on maternal and paternal parenting in infancy and toddlerhood, a subsample of families was selected in which the child lived with both parents across the first two years of life. Of the 1,204 children seen at 7-months, 782 (65%) resided with both their biological mother and father. Of these families, 769 (98%) participated at 15-months, and 754 (96%) participated at 24m; however, 122 families were excluded from analyses because the child was no longer living with one of their parents by the 24-month assessment (97% of which were no longer living with their father). Finally, 12 additional families were excluded because the child had no available executive functioning data. Compared to families in stable, two-parent households, families that were excluded because the child no longer lived with one of their parents by 24-months were more likely to be from NC (64% vs. 46% in NC; X2 (1, N = 782) = 11.40, p < .01), identified as Black (47% vs. 22% Black; X2 (1, N = 782) = 31.66, p < .01), to be unmarried (57% vs. 21%; X2 (1, N = 777) = 63.68, p < .01), to have infants of lower general cognitive ability (M = 94.6 vs. 98.2 for MDI; t(695) = 3.09 p < .01), fewer years of paternal education (M = 11.9 vs. 13.1; t(777) = 5.65 p < .01), lower income-to-needs ratios (M = 1.49 vs. 2.51; t(780) = 5.65 p < .01), lower maternal sensitive parenting in infancy and toddlerhood (M =2.77 vs. 3.14; t(742) = 4.88 p < .01; M = 2.68 vs. 3.19; t(676) = 6.12 p < .01, respectively), lower paternal sensitive parenting in infancy (M = 2.59 vs. 2.83; t(585) = 2.52 p < .05), and lower child executive functioning scores (M = 44.7 vs. 55.0; t(622) = 4.95 p < .01.), but did not differ on gender (48% vs. 47% female, p = .88) or paternal sensitive parenting in toddlerhood (M =2.8 vs. 2.9, p = .19).

Procedures

Trained research assistants conducted in-home interviews and observations when children were 7-, 15-, and 24-months, and 3-years of age. Videotaped observations of mother-child and father-child semi-structured play interactions were collected on separate days when the child was 7- and 24-months old. An assessment of children’s general cognitive ability was collected at 15-months. At 3-years, children were administered tasks designed to assess emerging executive functions.

Measures

Background information

At 7-months, mothers reported on demographic information, including child gender, race, paternal years of education, parental marital status, and the total household income from all sources. The income-to-needs ratio of the family was calculated by dividing the total household income from all sources by the federal poverty threshold for that year, which was adjusted for the number and types of individuals living in the home. An income-to-needs ratio of 1 or below indicates that the family income is at or below the poverty line.

Infant general cognitive ability

At the beginning of the 15-month visit, children were administered the Mental Development Index of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (MDI, Bayley, 1993). The MDI is a widely used assessment of cognitive development in early childhood, producing norm-referenced standard scores (i.e., M = 100, SD = 15) that are predictive of later cognitive functioning (e.g., Lemelin, Tarabulsy, & Provost, 2006).

Paternal and maternal parenting quality

Fathers and mothers were filmed playing with their 7- and 24-month olds in a 10-minute play activity on different days. At 7-months, parents were given a standardized set of toys for a free-play activity (i.e., a lights and levers activity center, stacking rings, blocks that rattled), and were instructed to play with their infants as they normally would if given free time during the day. At 24-months, parents and children completed a puzzle task activity, in which three developmentally appropriate, non-connecting puzzles of increasing difficulty (i.e., larger numbers of pieces) were available for the child to play with. Parents were told they could provide any assistance to their child that they thought was needed, and were given the first uncompleted puzzle while seated at a table. If the dyad completed the puzzle, they were presented with up to two additional puzzles. Mothers and fathers were given different sets of toys and puzzles for these interactions.

Mother-child and father-child interactions were coded separately. The current analyses focused on the parental scales of Sensitivity/Supportive Presence, Detachment/Disengagement, Stimulation of Cognitive Development, Positive Regard, and Animation in interacting with the child (Cox & Crnic, 2002; NICHD ECCRN, 1999). The Sensitivity/Supportive Presence subscale assessed the degree to which parents consistently displayed responsive, emotionally supportive behaviors that were well-timed, well-paced, and appropriate to the child’s cues. The Detachment/Disengagement subscale captures the extent to which the parent was uninvolved or disengaged during the parent-child interaction, including rarely making eye contact or speaking, and rarely responding to the child’s vocalizations, bids for attention, or distress, and mechanical or perfunctory behavior. The Stimulation of Cognitive Development subscale captures the parent’s effortful attempts to stimulate or teach the child, including focusing the child’s attention on the perceptual qualities (e.g., sounds, colors, movements) of objects, verbally responding to and expanding on the child’s verbalizations or vocalizations, drawing connections between the task and the child’s past experiences, and asking questions that require problem solving. The Positive Regard subscale indexes the parent’s positive feelings toward the child, including praise, smiling and laughing with the child, physical affection, and speaking in a warm tone of voice. The Animation subscale measures how animated the parent’s face and voice were throughout the activity, including energy, excitement, or interest, such as large facial expressions such as opening the eyes or mouth wide and/or an enthusiastic tone of voice. Global ratings of parent’s behavior across the interaction were made on a 1–5 scale, from not at all characteristic to highly characteristic. Coders were trained until reliability was met on each scale (ICC > .80), with continued reliability checks on a random selection of 20% of the tapes. Informed by an exploratory factor analysis with an oblique rotation (promax), these individual subscales were composited to form an overall Paternal Sensitive Parenting and Maternal Sensitive Parenting composites (the mean of Sensitivity/Supportive Presence, Detachment/Disengagement (reverse scored), Stimulation of Cognitive Development, Positive Regard, and Animation; ICC = .87 and .85 at 7-months for mothers and fathers, and .91 for both at 24-months). A high score on the Sensitive Parenting composite indicates the parent was responsive, emotionally supportive, engaged, attentive and warm, showed excitement and interest, and consistently tried to foster the child’s earning during play, while a low score indicates the parent rarely responded appropriately to the child’s cues, showed a lack of awareness of the child’s needs, appeared disengaged, uninterested, made almost no attempts to teach or stimulate the child, was expressionless, impassive, lacking in energy, and flat or negative towards the child.

Child executive functioning

Children’s executive functioning was assessed at 3-years using tasks administered in a flipbook format. For each task, knowledge of the requisite shapes, colors, sizes, or items used in the assessment was established beforehand, and examiners first administered training trials for the task and up to three practice trials, as needed. Testing on specific tasks was discontinued if children failed to demonstrate understanding of the task goals. The following provides a brief description of these assessments, for further information on each task and completion rates, see Willoughby et al., (2010).

Working Memory Span (working memory)

For the Working Memory Span task, children were shown an outline of a house, inside of which was a drawing of an animal with a small colored circle above it. The child was first asked to name the animal, and then name the color of the circle. On the next page, there was only the outline of the house, and the examiner asked the child what animal had been in the house (requiring the child to remember the animal after focusing on the color). Children were administered one 1-house trial, two 2- house trials, and two 3- house trials, and the percentage of correct responses across trials was used.

Something’s the Same Game (attention shifting)

The Something’s the Same game was administered to assess attention shifting (an adaptation of the Flexible Item Selection Task; Jacques & Zelazo, 2001). Children were shown a page with two drawings of objects that were similar in one respect (color, shape, or size). The examiner then pointed out the characteristic on which the items were similar, and flipped the page. On the second page there were the same two items, with a dashed vertical line and a drawing of a third item, which was similar in a distinct way to one of the original two pictures (e.g., if the first two pictures had the same color, the third would be similar in shape or size to one of the pictures). The examiner asked the child to pick which of the original two pictures was similar to the new picture (requiring the child to shift their attention to a new dimension of similarity). The percentage of correct responses across 15 trials was used.

Silly Sounds Stroop (inhibitory control)

Derived from the day-night task (Gerstadt, Hong, & Diamond, 1994), for the Silly Sounds Stroop task children were shown a picture of a cat and a dog on a page, and asked to make the sounds of the dog and then cat. The examiner then told the child that in the Silly Sounds game, cats make the sounds of dogs, and vice versa. The examiner then pointed to the first animal, and asked what sound this animal makes in the silly sounds game, followed by the next animal. A total of 36 items were presented, with the examiner only flipping the page and pointing to the animal (no verbal prompt about the silly sounds game) after the first 8 items. Percentage correct for the first item on each page was used.

Spatial Conflict (inhibitory control)

In the spatial conflict task (similar to the task used by Gerardi-Caulton (2000)), the child was given a response card with a drawing with car on the left side and a boat on the right. The research assistant turns pages that depict a car or a boat, and the child is instructed to touch a car when they see a car and a boat when they see a boat. Across the first 8 trials, the picture was depicted centrally, giving the opportunity to reinforce the task instructions. For trials 9–22, cars and boats are depicted laterally, with cars always appearing on the left and boats on the right (consistent with the placement on the child’s response card, building a propensity to touch the response card based on location (e.g., images on the left always correspond to the child touching the left on their card, and vice versa). For trials 23–35, cars and boats began to be depicted contra-laterally, with cars or boats usually (but not exclusively) appearing on the opposite side as the response card. Contra-lateral responses require inhibitory control from the previously established pre-potent response (spatial location is no longer informative). The percentage of correct responses on contra-lateral trials was used.

Animal Go/No-Go (inhibitory control)

Similar to standard go/no-go tasks, children were given a large, clicking button to press, and were asked to click the button whenever they saw an animal, unless that animal was a pig. The examiner flipped the page every 2 seconds, with a line drawing of seven possible animals. Varying numbers of go trials prior to the no-go trial were presented (one-go, three-go, five-go, one-go, one-go and three-go trials). Percentage correct on no-go trials was used.

An overall executive functioning score was calculated by taking the mean percentage of correct responses on available tasks, based on prior work suggesting a one factor solution provided the best representation to the data (Willoughby & Blair, 2011; Willoughby, Wirth, & Blair, 2011; Willoughby et al.; 2010; 2011).

Analytic Strategy

Our questions regarding the links between fathers’ and mothers’ sensitive parenting during infancy and toddlerhood and children’s executive functioning were explored within a path modeling framework, using Mplus (version 5.2, Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2007) with maximum likelihood estimation. Full information maximum likelihood was used to account for missing data.

First, we examined the effects of paternal and maternal parenting quality in infancy on the emergence of executive functioning at 3-years of age; site, child characteristics (gender, race, and general cognitive ability), and father and family characteristics (paternal education, parental marital status and household income) were entered as covariates in this and all subsequent analyses. The data collection site (NC versus PA) was included as a covariate to account for any potential differences due to geographic and cultural variation across sites. Next, we examined the additional effects of parenting quality during toddlerhood, accounting for prior parenting quality in infancy. Finally, we examined whether the links between parenting and executive functioning differed in infancy and toddlerhood by constraining the paths between executive functioning and parenting to be equal in infancy and toddlerhood (for mothers and fathers, respectively).

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents descriptive information on the sample and bivariate associations between site, child characteristics, family characteristics, parenting quality, and children’s executive functioning. In infancy and toddlerhood, both paternal and maternal parenting quality were significantly correlated with children’s executive functioning at 3-years of age (for maternal parenting, r = .28 and .32, for paternal, r = .14 and .32, respectively). However, it should be noted that bivariate associations between executive functioning and fathers’ parenting quality in toddlerhood were more than two times as large as those between executive functioning and fathers’ parenting quality in infancy. The majority of covariates were significantly correlated with both parenting quality and children’s executive functioning (with the exception of child gender and site, see Table 1 for specific bivariate associations). On average, maternal sensitive parenting was greater than that of fathers in infancy (M = 3.15, SD = .73, M = 2.83, SD = .75, respectively, t(453) = 9.84 p < .01), as well as toddlerhood (M = 3.20, SD = .78, M = 2.99, SD = .69, respectively), t(331) = 7.73 p < .01.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, Frequencies, and Intercorrelations of Primary Study Variables (n = 620).

M SD %a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
 1. Site1 54.7 --
Child characteristics
 2. Gender2 51.0 .10 --
 3. Race3 22.2 −.86** −.04 --
 4. General cog. ability (15m) 97.96 10.39 .33** −.15** −.31** --
Father and family characteristics
 5. Paternal years education (7m) 13.15 2.27 .30** .03 −.39** .23** --
 6. Parental marital status4 (7m) 79.2 −.13 −.03 −.17* .08 .45** --
 7. Income-to-needs (7–24m) 2.44 1.70 .22** .08 −.51** .19** .44** .57** --
Infant parenting quality (7m)
 8. Maternal sensitive 3.15 .73 .19** −.08 −.36** .19** .34** .21** .24** --
 9. Paternal sensitive 2.83 .75 .07 .03 −.31** .11* .21** .12* .16** .33** --
Toddler parenting quality (24m)
 10. Maternal sensitive 3.20 .78 .13* .04 −.30** .29** .42** .39** .32** .52** .26** --
 11. Paternal sensitive 2.99 .69 .10 −.02 −.40** .25** .38** .29** .27** .26** .38** .44** --
Child exec. functioning (EF)
 12. 3-year EF 55.03 18.51 .41** −.09 −.38** .27** .29** .13* .21** .28** .14* .32** .32**
Open in a new tab

Note:

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01;

a

Frequency of variable = 1;

1

0=NC, 1=PA;

2

0=Girls, 1=Boys;

3

0=White, 1=Black;

4

0=not married, 1=married

Parenting at 7-months and Executive Functioning

In order to examine the unique effects of fathers’ parenting quality in infancy on children’s executive functioning, paternal sensitive parenting at 7-months of age was specified as a predictor of children’s executive functioning at 3-years, along with concurrent maternal sensitive parenting, site, child gender, race, general cognitive ability at 15-months, paternal education, parental marital status and the income-toneeds ratio of the family at 7-months. As can be seen in Table 2, paternal sensitive parenting at 7-months was not a significant predictor of executive functioning, b = .18, n.s. In contrast, greater maternal sensitive parenting significantly predicted higher levels of executive functioning, b = 3.68, p < .01.

Table 2.

Parenting quality in infancy and toddlerhood predicting the development of children’s executive functioning (n = 620).

Model I: Parenting at 7-months
Model II: Parenting at 7- and 24-months
b SE p b SE p
 Site1 7.25 1.76 <.01 8.50 1.74 <.01
Child characteristics
 Gender2 −2.70 1.44 .06 −3.14 1.42 .03
 Race3 −2.30 2.17 .29 −.74 2.15 .73
 General cog. ability (15m) .219 .08 <.01 .12 .08 .12
Father and Family Characteristics
 Paternal years education (7m) .96 .38 .01 .41 .38 .29
 Parent marital status4 (7m) .94 1.95 .63 −.07 1.94 .97
 Income-to-needs (7m) .53 .41 .20 -- -- --
 Income-to-needs (7–24m) -- -- -- .29 .45 .52
Infant Parenting Quality
 Maternal sensitive (7m) 3.68 1.15 <.01 2.06 1.23 .09
 Paternal sensitive (7m) .18 1.23 .88 −1.23 1.26 .33
Toddler Parenting Quality
 Maternal sensitive (24m) -- -- -- 3.28 1.25 .01
 Paternal sensitive (24m) -- -- -- 5.44 1.60 <.01
Open in a new tab

Note:

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01;

a

Frequency of variable = 1;

1

0=NC, 1=PA;

2

0=Girls, 1=Boys;

3

0=White, 1=Black;

4

0=not married, 1=married

Parenting at 7- and 24-months and Executive Functioning

Next, we examined the effects of paternal sensitive parenting during toddlerhood on executive functioning, accounting for the effects of prior parenting in infancy, concurrent maternal parenting, site, child gender, race, general cognitive ability, paternal education, parental marital status, and the average income-toneeds ratio of the family across 7- to 24- months. As can be seen in Table 2, greater paternal sensitive parenting at 24-months significantly predicted higher executive functioning, b = 5.44, p < .01. Maternal sensitive parenting at 24-months also significantly predicted executive functioning, b = 3.28, p < .01, although the effects of maternal parenting at 7-months was no longer a significant predictor after accounting for more proximal parenting effects, b = 2.06, p = .09. To examine if there were significant differences the associations between 24-month maternal and paternal parenting on executive functioning, these pathways were constrained to be equal; this model did not significantly reduce model fit compared to a model where these effects were freely estimated, Δχ2 (1) = .87, n.s., suggesting similar effects for maternal and paternal sensitive parenting in toddlerhood (b = 4.15, p < .01).

To explicitly test for differences in the effects of father’ parenting during infancy and toddlerhood on executive functioning, the pathways for paternal sensitive parenting at 7- and 24-months on executive functioning were constrained to be equal. This resulted in a significant degradation of model fit compared to a model where these effects were freely estimated, Δχ2 (1) = 7.74, p < .01, suggesting that the effects of paternal sensitive parenting on executive functioning were significantly greater in toddlerhood. Next the pathways for maternal parenting at 7- and 24-months on executive functioning were constrained to be equal. This model did not significantly reduce model fit compared to a model where these effects were freely estimated, Δχ2 (1) = .35, n.s., suggesting similar effects of maternal parenting on executive functioning during both infancy and toddlerhood (see Figure 1 for completely standardized solution with and without covariates). Taken together, maternal and paternal parenting accounted for over a quarter of the variance in early executive functions. With the exception of cross-lagged linkages between 7- and 24-month maternal and paternal parenting, estimates were largely similar in models with and without covariates; with covariates, neither cross-lagged pathways were significant, whereas cross-lagged paths between both maternal and paternal parenting were significant without covariates.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Parenting quality at 7- and 24-months predicting the children’s executive functioning at 3-years (n = 620).

Note: Completely standardized maximum likelihood parameter estimates; †p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01; pathways for 7m and 24m maternal sensitive parenting constrained to be equal; non-significant pathways for final model with covariates represented by dashed lines, covariates not depicted for clarity; parameter estimates for model without covariates depicted in parentheses

Post-hoc analyses were conducted to compare the stability of parenting for mothers and fathers, as well as the associations between maternal and paternal parenting at 7- and 24- months. First, we examined the relative stability of maternal and paternal parenting by estimating a model in which the autoregressive pathways across 7- to 24-months were freely estimated (b = .52, p < .01 and b = .31, p < .01, respectively), then constrained to be equal; equality constraints resulted in a significant degradation of model fit compared to a model where these effects were freely estimated, Δχ2 (1) = 13.93, p < .01, suggesting maternal parenting was more stable than that of fathers. Next, we examined whether the links between concurrent parenting varied over time by freely estimating the covariance between maternal and paternal parenting within time point both 7- and 24-months, and then constraining this covariance to be equal at both time-points; this model did not significantly reduce model fit, Δχ2 (1) = 1.96, n.s., suggesting similar associations between concurrent maternal and paternal parenting during infancy and toddlerhood.

Discussion

Our findings suggest fathers’ sensitive parenting in toddlerhood has an independent and prominent role in the emergence of executive functions, contributing to a growing body of evidence suggesting the importance of early caregiving for the development of these skills. Specifically, fathers’ sensitive parenting during play at 24-months predicted children’s executive functioning at 3-years of age. Notably, these findings emerged after accounting for the quality of concurrent and prior maternal care, children’s early cognitive ability, as well as other child and family factors. In contrast, paternal parenting quality during play at 7-months did not appear to make an independent contribution above that of maternal care, although the links between maternal parenting quality and executive functioning seemed to operate in similar ways during infancy and toddlerhood.

Contributing to a large body of literature on the distinct and complementary influence of fathers on children’s social, emotional and cognitive development (Parke, 2002), our findings support the hypothesis that paternal parenting in toddlerhood is linked with the early development of executive functions. Although the unique contribution of fathers’ sensitive support during play was limited to the toddler period, these findings are in line with prior work suggesting beneficial effects of supportive paternal parenting during toddlerhood and the preschool years on cognitive and regulatory skill development (e.g., Cabrera et al., 2007; NICHD ECCRN, 2004, 2008; Tamis-Lemonda et al., 2004). As noted by Bernier and colleagues (2012), attachment, emotion regulation, and psychobiological theorists collectively support the notion that cognitive regulatory skills emerging in early childhood are intricately tied to caregiver relationships. Paternal and maternal warmth, sensitivity to the child’s signals, emotional involvement, facilitation of persistence and focused attention, cognitive stimulation, and encouragement in the face of challenge may set the foundation for the physiological and behavioral regulatory skills needed for executive functions (Bernier et al, 2012). For example, parenting quality for both mothers and fathers has been linked with stress-response system functioning (Gunner et al., 2006; Mills-Koonce et al., 2011), which in turn may alter the development of prefrontal brain regions linked with executive functions (Blair et al., 2011). Similarly, repeated experiences successfully regulating emotion and cognitive challenges with sensitive caregiver support are thought to be critical for the internalization of these skills and the development of independent self-regulation. As fathers may provide sensitive support in different ways or at different times than mothers, or in the absence of maternal support (Cutrona et al. 2000), the independent contribution of mothers’ and fathers’ sensitive parenting to executive functioning is logical, particularly at a time in which these skills are under rapid development.

Highlighting the complementary contribution of fathers, Grossmann and colleagues (2002) suggest that paternal sensitivity during play is a particularly important context for developing the skills needed for regulating affect, attention, and behavior in the service of goal-directed action. In particular, they note that the higher levels of arousal and challenge often linked with father-toddler play may offer important opportunities for children to practice these regulatory skills. It also likely that fathers who are emotionally supportive and sensitive during play provide daily opportunities for toddlers to practice these skills with support outside of this context (e.g., waiting to eat, attending to directions). Intriguing questions remain regarding how specific aspects of father parenting relate to underlying components of executive functioning, as well as the neural mechanisms underlying these associations. In spite of these questions, these findings provide further evidence that early relationships with caregivers are linked with individual differences in executive functioning.

Although paternal sensitive support during play in infancy did not have an independent, significant effect on children’s executive functioning, there are many potential reasons why we did not find evidence for this link. On average, mothers remain the primary caregivers for infants, and this may be particularly true in rural, low-income communities (Manoogian, Jurich, Sano, & Ko, 2013). The increased influence of paternal sensitivity in toddlerhood may reflect higher levels of paternal involvement at this age, compared to infancy, or increases in sensitive paternal parenting over time. Given the lack of significant links between early maternal parenting and subsequent paternal parenting (as well as similar concurrent linkages in maternal and paternal parenting in infancy and toddlerhood), it is unlikely that the differential effects of paternal parenting are due to fathers parenting more like mothers over time. There were also differences in the characteristics of the parent-child interaction task that may account for some of the differential effects of fathers’ parenting across development. During both infancy and toddlerhood, the toys provided were designed to stimulate the use of developmentally appropriate skills with parent’s sensitive support, and at both ages parental sensitive support involved following the child’s lead and helping to regulate arousal, attention, and affect. However, consistent with the growing capabilities of toddlers, playing with puzzles involved a greater degree of emotional and attentional challenge; it may be this type of challenging play more directly elicits the kind of sensitive support from fathers that is important for emerging executive functions. Whether the differential influence of paternal sensitive parenting during play with their infants and toddlers reflects differential levels of paternal involvement across development, distinct parenting behavior across tasks, or the increased saliency of fathers’ sensitive, supportive, challenging play with older children remains open for investigation.

Although not central to the current investigation, it is notable that the links between maternal sensitive support during play and executive functioning at 3-years of age were not significantly different in magnitude during infancy and toddlerhood. This is one of the first studies to compare the independent contribution of sensitive maternal support at 7- and 24-months of age, and the continuity of maternal effects raises interesting questions regarding the pathways through which maternal sensitive support may contribute to the emergence of children’s executive functions in distinct ways across early childhood. Understanding the pathways through which sensitive maternal parenting across early childhood may contribute to children’s executive functions remains an important area for future research. Additionally, it is notable that paternal sensitive parenting during play was less stable than that of mothers; on average, fathers showed slightly greater improvement in sensitive parenting over time. Although some instability in early paternal sensitivity is consistent with prior work (Brown, Mangelsdorf, & Neff, 2012), whether this change is in part a byproduct of greater paternal involvement (e.g., increased awareness of the child’s needs and capabilities), greater paternal comfort in playing with older children, or some other factor remains open to investigation.

A number of limitations should be noted. First, the sample was drawn from a larger representative sample of families residing in poor rural counties, and we selected a subset of families in which the father resided with the mother across the first two years of life. It is unclear whether these findings generalize to more advantaged populations, families with non-residential fathers, or in which the fathers’ presence is less stable. Second, although sensitive parenting during play has long been used to assess parenting quality, there may be important differences in parenting within other contexts (e.g., under stressful conditions, routine care (Thompson, 1997)); future studies incorporating assessments of parenting across multiple contexts may provide a more nuanced and complete understanding of parenting and early executive functions. Finally, our results represent a conservative estimate of paternal effects; although controlling for maternal parenting provided a more stringent test of the unique role of fathers’ sensitive parenting, there are clearly shared parenting characteristics that may influence executive functions.

Despite these limitations, this study has a number of strengths. While paternal influences on cognitive and regulatory skills have been recognized, this is the first study to document links between the quality of father-child relationships and children’s emerging executive functions. The early antecedents of executive functioning remain relatively unexplored (Bernier et al., 2010), particularly in diverse and at-risk populations (but for exceptions, see Blair et al. 2011; Rhoades et al., 2010). Using longitudinal observations of parent-child relationships during infancy and toddlerhood, independent assessments of children’s emerging executive functioning at 3-years of age, and accounting for the quality of maternal care, early cognitive skills, demographic, family, and child characteristics, our findings lend greater confidence that the linkages found between father parenting and children’s executive functioning are not due other factors.

Taken as a whole, our findings suggest the importance of both paternal and maternal sensitive support for executive functioning in children growing up in rural, economically disadvantaged communities. Although a number of questions remain regarding the mechanisms and pathways through which early caregiving fosters skills such as working memory, attention shifting, and inhibitory control, this study represents an important step in understanding the antecedents of these skills. Further, our findings suggest that interventions targeted to improve the quality of early caregiving relationships for both parents may have important implications for the development of flexible, goal-directed behavior; targeting mother’s and fathers’ abilities to provide sensitive care for their young children may be particularly important for early executive functioning skills. With prior work suggesting the quality of fathers’ parenting is influenced the quality of the interparental relationship (Doherty et al., 1998), and that positive parenting qualities are more likely to spill-over to the other parent-child relationship when marital quality is high (Barnett et al., 2008), interventions targeting the family system more broadly may be particularly beneficial (Cowan et al., 2009). Given that these executive functioning skills have critical implications for cognitive and social development, as well as mental and physical health across the lifespan, this is clearly an important area for future work.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under award number T32-HD007376 and PO1-HD-39667, with co-funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Footnotes

The Family Life Project Key Investigators include: Lynne Vernon-Feagans, Mark Greenberg, Martha Cox, Clancy Blair, Peg Burchinal, Michael Willoughby, Patricia Garrett-Peters, Roger Mills-Koonce, and Maureen Ittig.

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

References

  1. Barnett M, Deng M, Mills-Koonce WR, Willoughby M, Cox M. Interdependence of parenting of mothers and fathers of infants. Journal of Family Psychology. 2008;22:561–573. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.561. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bayley S. Bayley Scales of Infant Development. 2. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  3. Benes FM. The development of prefrontal cortex: The maturation of neurotransmitter systems and their interactions. In: Nelson CA, Luciana M, editors. Handbook of Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience. The MIT Press; 2001. pp. 79–92. [Google Scholar]
  4. Berger LM, Carlson MJ, Bzostek SH, Osborne C. Parenting practices of resident fathers: The role of marital and biological ties. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2008;70:625–639. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00510.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bernier A, Carlson SM, Deschênes M, Matte-Gagné C. Social factors in the development of early executive functioning: A closer look at the caregiving environment. Developmental Science. 2012;15:12–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01093.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bernier A, Carlson SM, Whipple N. From External Regulation to Self-Regulation: Early Parenting Precursors of Young Children’s Executive Functioning. Child Development. 2010;81:326–339. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01397.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Blair C. School Readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological conceptualization of children’s functioning at school entry. American Psychologist. 2002;57:111–127. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.57.2.111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Blair C, Razza RP. Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in Kindergarten. Child Development. 2007;78:647–663. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Blair C, Granger DA, Willoughby M, Mills-Koonce R, Cox M, Greenberg MT, Kivlighan K, Fortunato CK. Salivary cortisol mediates effects of poverty and parenting on executive functions in early childhood. Child Development. 2011;82:1970–1984. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01643.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Blair C, Raver CC, Berry D The FLP Investigators. Two approaches to estimating the effect of parenting on the development of executive function in early childhood. Developmental Psychology. doi: 10.1037/a0033647. (in press) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Brown GL, Mangelsdorf SC, Neff C. Father involvement, paternal sensitivity, and father-child attachment security in the first 3 years. Journal of Family Psychology. 2012;26:421–430. doi: 10.1037/a0027836. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cabrera NJ, Shannon JD, Tamis-LeMonda C. Fathers’ influence on their children’s cognitive and emotional development: From toddlers to Pre-K. Applied Development Science. 2007;11:208–213. doi: 10.1080/10888690701762100. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cabrera NJ, Tamis-LeMonda C, Bradley R, Hofferth S, Lamb ME. Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child Development. 2000;71:127–136. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Carlson SM. Social origins of executive function development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. 2009;123:87–98. doi: 10.1002/cd.237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Chugani HT, Behen ME, Muzik O, Juhász C, Nagy F, Chugani DC. Local brain functional activity following early deprivation: A study of post-institutionalized Romanian orphans. Neuroimage. 2001;14:1290–1301. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2001.0917. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cowan PA, Cowan CP, Kerig PK. Mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters: Gender differences in family formation and parenting style. In: Cowan PA, Field D, Hansen D, Skolnick A, Swanson G, editors. Family, Self and Society: Toward a New Agenda for Family Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1993. pp. 165–195. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cowan PA, Cowan CP, Pruett M, Pruett K, Wong J. Promoting father’s engagement with children: Preventive interventions for low-income families. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2009;71:663–679. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00625.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cox M, Crnic K. Unpublished manuscript. University of North Carolina; Chapel Hill: 2002. Qualitative ratings for parent– child interaction at 3–12 months of age. [Google Scholar]
  19. De Bellis MD. Developmental traumatology: The psychobiological development of maltreated children and its implications for research, treatment, and policy. Development and Psychopathology. 2001;13:539–564. doi: 10.1017/s0954579401003078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Diamond A. The Epigenesis of Mind: Essays on Biology and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  21. Diamond A. The early development of executive functions. In: Bialystok E, Craik F, editors. Lifespan Cognition: Mechanisms of Change. NY: Oxford University Press; 2006. pp. 70–95. [Google Scholar]
  22. Diamond A. Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology. 2013;64:135–168. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Eiden RD, Edwards EP, Leonard KE. Predictors of effortful control among children of alcoholic and nonalcoholic fathers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2004;65:309. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2004.65.309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Lamb ME, Lewis C. The development and significance of father-child relationships in two-parent families. In: Lamb ME, editor. The Role of the Father in Child Development. 4. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 2010. pp. 94–153. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lemelin JP, Tarabulsy GM, Provost M. Predicting preschool cognitive development from infant temperament, maternal sensitivity, and psychosocial risk. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 2006;52:779–804. doi: 10.1353/mpq.2006.0038. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Mills-Koonce WR, Willoughby MT, Zvara B, Barnett M, Gustafsson H, Cox MJ the Family Life Project Key Investigators. Direct and indirect effects of mothers’ and fathers’ positive engagement on children’s early cognitive development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2015.01.001. (under review) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Factors associated with fathers’ caregiving activities and sensitivity with young children. Journal of Family Psychology. 2000;14:200–219. doi: 10.1037//D893-3200.14.2.200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Garon N, Bryson SE, Smith IM. Executive function in preschoolers: A review using an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin. 2008;134:31–60. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Gerardi-Caulton G. Sensitivity to spatial conflict and the development of self-regulation in children 24–36 months of age. Developmental Science. 2000;3:397–404. [Google Scholar]
  30. Gerstadt CL, Hong YJ, Diamond A. The relationship between cognition and action: performance of children 3 ½ –7 years old on a Stroop-like day-night test. Cognition. 1994;53:129–153. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90068-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Grossmann K, Grossmann KE, Fremmer-Bombik E, Kindler H, Scheuerer-Englisch H. The uniqueness of the child–father attachment relationship: Fathers’ sensitive and challenging play as a pivotal variable in a 16-year longitudinal study. Social Development. 2002;11:301–337. doi: 10.1111/1467-9507.00202. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Grossmann K, Grossmann KE, Kindler H, Zimmermann P. A wider view of attachment and exploration: The influence of mothers and fathers on the development of psychological security from infancy to young adulthood. In: Cassidy J, Shaver P, editors. Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications. 2. NY: Guilford; 2008. pp. 857–879. [Google Scholar]
  33. Gunnar M, Quevedo K. The neurobiology of stress and development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007;58:145–173. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Gunnar MR, Vazquez D. Stress neurobiology and developmental psychopathology. In: Cicchetti D, Cohen D, editors. Developmental Psychopathology, Vol 2: Developmental Neuroscience. 2. Hoboken NJ: Wiley; 2006. pp. 533–577. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hammond SI, Müller U, Carpendale JI, Bibok MB, Liebermann-Finestone DP. The effects of parental scaffolding on preschoolers’ executive function. Developmental Psychology. 2012;48:271–281. doi: 10.1037/a0025519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hughes C, Ensor R, Wilson A, Graham A. Tracking executive function across the transition to school: A latent variable approach. Developmental Neuropsychology. 2010;35:20–36. doi: 10.1080/87565640903325691. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Jacques S, Zelazo PD. The Flexible Item Selection Task (FIST): A measure of executive function in preschoolers. Developmental Neuropsychology. 2001;20:573–591. doi: 10.1207/S15326942DN2003_2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Karreman A, van Tuijl C, van Aken MA, Deković M. Parenting, coparenting, and effortful control in preschoolers. Journal of Family Psychology. 2008;22:30–40. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Kochanska G, Aksan N, Prisco TR, Adams EE. Mother–child and father–child mutually responsive orientation in the first 2 years and children’s outcomes at preschool age: Mechanisms of influence. Child Development. 2008;79:30–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01109.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Manoogian MM, Jurich J, Sano Y, Ko JL. “My Kids Are More Important Than Money”: Parenting Expectations and Commitment Among Appalachian Low-Income Mothers. Journal of Family Issues. 2013:1–25. doi: 10.1177/0192513X13490402. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus Users Guide. 5. Los Angeles, CA: 2006. [Google Scholar]
  42. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Child care and mother-child interaction in the first 3 years of life. Developmental Psychology. 1999;35:1399–1413. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Fathers’ and mother’s parenting behavior and beliefs as predictors of child social adjustment in the transition to school. Journal of Family Psychology. 2004;18:628–638. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.35.6.1399. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Mothers’ and fathers’ support for child autonomy and early school achievement. Developmental Psychology. 2008;44:895–907. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.44.4.895. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Noble KG, Norman MF, Farah MJ. Neurocognitive correlates of socioeconomic status in kindergarten children. Developmental Science. 2005;8:74–87. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00394.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Noland JS, Singer LT, Arendt RE, Minnes S, Short EJ, Bearer CF. Executive Functioning in Preschool-Age Children Prenatally Exposed to Alcohol, Cocaine, and Marijuana. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2003;27:647–656. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2003.tb04401.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Parke RD. Fathers and families. In: Bornstein M, editor. Handbook of Parenting, Volume 3: Being and Becoming a Parent. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2002. pp. 27–73. [Google Scholar]
  48. Petrill SA, Lipton PA, Hewitt JK, Plomin R, Cherny SS, Corley R, DeFries JC. Genetic and environmental contributions to general cognitive ability through the first 16 years of life. Developmental Psychology. 2004;40:805–812. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.805. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Riggs NR, Blair CB, Greenberg MT. Concurrent and 2-year longitudinal relations between executive function and the behavior of 1st and 2nd grade children. Child Neuropsychology. 2004;9:267–276. doi: 10.1076/chin.9.4.267.23513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Rhoades BL, Greenberg MT, Lanza ST, Blair C. Demographic and familial predictors of early executive function development: contribution of a person-centered perspective. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2011;108:638–662. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2010.08.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Sowell ER, Trauner DA, Gamst A, Jernigan TL. Development of cortical and subcortical brain structures in childhood and adolescence: a structural MRI study. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. 2002;44:4–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2002.tb00253.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Tamis-LeMonda CS, Cabrera N, editors. Handbook of Father Involvement: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; New Jersey: 2002. [Google Scholar]
  53. Tamis-LeMonda CS, Shannon JD, Cabrera NJ, Lamb ME. Fathers and mothers at play with their 2-and 3-year-olds: Contributions to language and cognitive development. Child Development. 2004;75:1806–1820. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00818.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Thompson RA. Sensitivity and security: New questions to ponder. Child Development. 1997;68:595–597. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1997.tb04220.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Wiebe SA, Sheffield T, Nelson JM, Clark CA, Chevalier N, Epsy KA. The structure of executive function in 3-year-olds. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2010;108:436–452. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2010.08.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Willoughby MT, Blair CB, Wirth RJ, Greenberg M. The measurement of executive function at age 3 years: Psychometric properties and criterion validity of a new battery of tasks. Psychological Assessment. 2010;22:306. doi: 10.1037/a0018708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Willoughby MT, Blair CB. Test-retest reliability of a new executive function battery for use in early childhood. Child Neuropsychology. 2011;17:564–579. doi: 10.1080/09297049.2011.554390. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Willoughby MT, Blair CB, Wirth RJ, Greenberg M The Family Life Investigative Group. The measurement of executive function at age 3 years: psychometric properties and criterion validity of a new battery of tasks. Psychological Assessment. 2010;22:306–317. doi: 10.1037/a0018708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Willoughby MT, Blair CB, Wirth RJ, Greenberg M The Family Life Project Key Investigators. The measurement of executive function at age 5: Psychometric properties and relationship to academic achievement. Psychological Assessment. 2012;24:226–239. doi: 10.1037/a0025361. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Willoughby MT, Burchinal M, Garrett-Peters P, Mills-Koonce R, Vernon-Feagans L, Cox M The Family Life Project Key Investigators. Recruitment of the Family Life Project Sample. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 2013;78:24–35. doi: 10.1111/mono.12048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Willoughby MT, Wirth RJ, Blair CB. Contributions of modern measurement theory to measuring executive function in early childhood: An empirical demonstration. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2011;108:414–435. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2010.04.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Zelazo PD, Müller U. Executive function in typical and atypical development. In: Goswami U, editor. Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development. Malden: Blackwell Publishing; 2002. pp. 445–469. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES